I barely felt like a journalist most days covering a beat, at least during the "access" parts of the beat. It's a choreographed cattle pull. I don't know why anyone wants to do it, especially in this day and age, when every play is shown from six different angles on television.

I've said it a million times here: Sports journalists need to begin weaning themselves off the access teat. Buy a ticket.

Mostly I'm with Whitman though in the "I don't know why anyone wants to do it" camp.

But let's say a newspaper tried what this writer or his editor is advocating -- forgo access, get the "real story," etc. etc. Is there a market for that kind of beat coverage in college? I don't get the sense there is. College fans increasingly want to know less and less about off-field troubles. Some might be against rapes and cover-ups -- although a shockingly large percentage of fans seem quite OK with those -- but for almost everything else you're just pissing people off. And unlike with government or business reporting, there typically isn't a compelling public interest to getting the real scoop on injuries, academic trouble or even NCAA violations.

However, I am interested to know more about the policy around needing permission to call professors and others on campus but not associated with the football program. Have the professors agreed to that policy? If a tenured professor hasn't agreed and a beat writer hasn't agreed, who cares what the football SID says?

Matt is writing about a general policy that the media need to go through CSU's public relations office to contact a member of the faculty. It's silly, but the university can withhold access to administrators if the media contact reporters directly.

Mostly I'm with Whitman though in the "I don't know why anyone wants to do it" camp.

But let's say a newspaper tried what this writer or his editor is advocating -- forgo access, get the "real story," etc. etc. Is there a market for that kind of beat coverage in college? I don't get the sense there is. College fans increasingly want to know less and less about off-field troubles. Some might be against rapes and cover-ups -- although a shockingly large percentage of fans seem quite OK with those -- but for almost everything else you're just pissing people off. And unlike with government or business reporting, there typically isn't a compelling public interest to getting the real scoop on injuries, academic trouble or even NCAA violations.

However, I am interested to know more about the policy around needing permission to call professors and others on campus but not associated with the football program. Have the professors agreed to that policy? If a tenured professor hasn't agreed and a beat writer hasn't agreed, who cares what the football SID says?

Click to expand...

I tend to agree that there's a backlash with reporting minor infractions by athletes. The public is more apt to look upon such reporting as "picking on" jocks.